Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Overwatch | Guild Wars 2 | Final Fantasy XIV

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming Discord
Quick Game Jump
Members:3,840,990 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

r1ft Gaming Blog

A mirror of my gaming blog at The jaded game designer turned corporate lackey. Feedback is always welcome.

Author: Daedren

Age of Conan: A Post Mortem Analysis

Posted by Daedren Thursday August 28 2008 at 4:34AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!


Hi, I'm Daedren. You might remember me from other articles such as "The effectiveness of raiding in only a tubesock" and "Erling Ellingson: Age of Conan Dev by day, Transvestite Cyborg by night?". It's me, alright, and I'm here, playing the role of the unbearer of bad news. I'm not bearing it, because it's not even news. This little tidbit of info-mation is that Age of Conan sucks. It's not the Gigli of the MMO industry, thank God, but that's only because Ben Affleck turned down his role for voiceovers for King Conan. No, I'm likening Age of Conan to be more of the Alexander of the MMO Industry: Huge expectations, huge budget; huge letdown, gracious cleavage.

This article isn't for people thinking about maybe playing Age of Conan. It's not for those still playing Age of Conan - which, admittedly, there still are. It's not even for the large majority of people who played the game, let it take you home, and then never called you back. This is solely targeted at a select group of people: the people at Funcom who helped make this piece of shit, and other people at other game companies who are also making a MMO. Now, you're probably thinking to yourself "Why the hell would Funcom devs read this wordy, highly opinionated article that's basically beating a dead horse, albeit more thoroughly and hopefully more eloquently than the past beaters?" The answer to that is I'm going to personally e-mail it to every one of them.

Funcom, now lovingly deemed "Failcom" by a good portion of the planet now, dropped an estimated $60M US pesos to produce what ended up being, for the most part, a huge disapointment to nearly everyone that played it. But hey, don't take it from me, let's take it from the burly, helmet clad raiders of Funcom themselves:

Erling Ellingson confirms that "subscriber base" is now 415,000 out of the original 800,000

My carefree use of the quotes here are for a reason. The term "subscriber base" seems to need an explanation.

Subscriber base is a fairly loose term which roughly means "People that might still be playing". You see, they fail to mention that in this 415,000 they're including anyone that still had their subscription active at the time of the report (15 August 2008).  That means if you were unfortunate enough to subscribe for 3 or 6 months at the time you bought the game, you're included in this number. No one actually knows how many active players they have as they've not released any server metrics, with damn good reason.

That means that half of the people that bought Age of Conan jumped ship within the first month of the release. And, if player estimates are correct, the actual player base is more realistically somewhere around 150K or 200K players. 3 months after release. Hell, Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest 1 are pulling those numbers today. Perhaps if Erling was actually honest and forward about the game and its flaws, instead of talking it up like it's the bees knees, his statements would gain a bit more credibility.

Next, we need to present the financial woes of Funcom and more importantly the CEO of the company:

Funcom Stock

Funcom Stock Sinking

Funcom CEO sells a pissload of his stocks, punches a baby

One really cool thing about Funcom is that all the execs have really cool viking sounding names like Olav and Gaute (pronounced like Gout). While this might be useful picking up American girls at a bar or scaring the shit out of someone by screaming their name at them, it seemingly means piss all when it comes to making a successful MMO.

Funcom stock dropped to all-time lows recently and the CEO is starting to liquidate. Next thing we know the lead Community Managers will be busted for kiddie porn and their corporate headquarters will mysteriously "catch on fire" - darn, and things were going so swell.

The Analysis

So, what the hell went wrong? Age of Conan does have a few redeeming qualities, that usually come with a price. Let's list these redeeming qualities, along with it's price:

Redeeming Quality     Price
Nice graphics         Shitty client
You see boobies       Shitty client
Heads do fly off      Shitty client
Good starting area    Delusion that the rest of the game will be like that

That takes us to cause of death #1: Poor client performance. Stability was actually better at release than it is now. Very few aren't victim of the memory leak bug - causing blue screens and CTD's quite frequently. Nothing like a few CTD's in a night to keep that immersion level going. The client itself is clearly lacking polish, something World of Warcraft did so splendidly. All the high res graphics and tits in the world don't mean anything if you can't keep your customer in the game and seeing these things.

Moving on: promised features. You've heard it all before: stuff was on the box that either wasn't there on release, or, functioning like Jenna Jamesons naughty parts: present but highly suspect.

Feature on the Box                    Status
DirectX 10 Support                    Rumored to exist somewhere
Drunken Brawling                      Needs more polish, like Gaute's Ferrari
Massive 150/150 PVP battles           Shitty client feature kicks in well before 300
Siege Battles, Keep Takes             Buggy and boring. If only there was an...
An actual PVP System                  Missing, presumed dead

I'll stop right there. In all honestly, no one gives a shit what is on the box of a game: who reads that anyway? However, a certain professional level is at least expected from a game company when they promote their product. Where do we draw the line? If the next MMO that hits the market says the box will give you a blowjob once you hit level 30 on your in game character, it had better well live up to its name, no matter how uncomfortable and disturbing that sounds.

Cause of death #2: Missing basic game features

Blah, blah, blah. This is all repeat shit from everywhere else. I'm effectively beating the proverbial horse here. It's time to move on to a more lucid analysis:


I suppose this makes all of theser "Causes of Death" a bit redundant. Objectively speaking, though, why is the game not fun? It's hard to put a finger on the exact reason, much like it's hard to explain why eating a plate of dog poo is not fun, other than it's a plate of shit. Let's start with this small, chaotic list:

  • Instanced zones
  • Lack of content past level 20
  • Uninnovative questing system (kill 50 what?)
  • Poor class balance in PVP
  • No PVP System whatsoever
  • A simple Rock / Paper / Scissors PVP design
  • Horrifically boring dungeon encounters
  • Lack of meaningful or interesting end game content
  • Itemization that seems like it was designed by a learning impaired doorknob
  • Extremely hard to customize your character or look different than anyone else
  • Travel system consists of trying to find new ways to kill yourself as quickly as possible
  • An economy that is completely broken
  • Crafting that is nothing more than a pointless time-sink
  • Identical guild cities everywhere that are, you guess it, nothing more than a pointless time-sink
  • Lack of creative vision when designing combat system
  • Complete lack of ingenuity regarding the spellcaster magic system
  • Failure to fix bugs in a timely fashion
  • Fixing bugs usually introduces more bugs into the game, which are then ignored for long periods of time
  • Focusing on stupid shit like spell names and sound effects when basic features of the game are not yet implemented
  • Legendary in-game customer support inspired by Verant and SOE
  • Constantly surprising players by showing how little they know about their own game
  • Inclusion of game breaking bugs (like gem duping or epic item farming) and then fixing them, oh, a couple weeks later

I know I missed a few. What it boils down to is that Age of Conan just doesn't provide a unique or meaningful game experience. Characters can level to max level somewhat quickly, yay!, only to be presented with the option of doing absolutely nothing interesting other than leveling yet another character to max level. A certain kudos is in place to Funcom for even failing at the basic treadmill system; for most people, that carrot on the end of the stick (being making another character to keep waiting for the real carrot) didn't go over to well.

That leads us into cause of death #3: Poor core game design makes the game not fun, nor addicting

Making a MMO that doesn't encourage players to play more, come back, or feel drawn to the game is like selling crack that doesn't get people high. I suppose some crackheads might say "but hey, I'm still smoking crack!" - but really, it's just a sugar cube that you paid 20$ for. In that sense, Age of Conan is a MMORPG without the first "M" or the "RPG". It's not Massively, because you're forced to be separated from the rest of your people either by the horribad instancing or poor zone design. It's not RPG because you don't feel like you are, indeed, roleplaying, due to the games limitations. At the end of the day, all we're really looking at is a "Multiplayer Online *something*" - or, in other words, a glorified chat room with mediocre Showtime-esque nudity that is prone to memory leaks.

I've by far passed the normal sane limit word count and thrown any credibility away as not saying whatever the hell is on my mind, so I need to hit one last point. There is one area, I must say, that Funcom has truly outdone itself:

Funcom Devs and Public Relations guys, we salute you!

For being complete tools.

Not all of them, of course. In fact, I bet its safe to say the majority of the Age of Conan team was just doing what they were told. Kind of like the Nazis were doing what they were told when they started cooking people. Intentional Godwin aside, most people of the dev team didn't have a big picture look at the game, so they can't be much to blame. However, Funcom has blessed us with a few memorable souls, and by memorable I mean complete assclowns and/or utter douchebags. First, we focus on the man himself. The one, the only, the...

Gaute Godager

This guy had some potential. Though his first name sounds like unsightly gout, his last name had the chance of being epic. It could have been "Go, Danger!" or, more sinisterly, "Go, dagger!". Now we're just left with not giving a shit what his name is because he's not only the "Game Director", meaning he's the one ultimately responsible for the state of this game, but also because his PR skills hover somewhere between "ghastly" and "humorously deranged".

Perhaps his most famous quote is this:

"I enjoy playing WOW, I enjoy playing Lord of the Rings Online. But you know... I'm going to be a bit cheeky now, but if you've been to McDonalds for four or five years, and had your burger and your coke, sometimes it's great to just have a great steak and a glass of good wine," he said.

You're exactly right, Gout. You were a bit cheeky. However, your analogy is a bit flawed. I'll fix it for you:

"I enjoy playing WOW, I enjoy playing Lord of the Rings Online. But you know... I'm going to be a bit cheeky now, but if you've been to McDonalds for four or five years, and had your burger and your coke, sometimes it's great to go into a restaurant, give them 50 bucks, stick around for 3 hours hoping you get food, before finally passing out with a bottle of MadDog 20/20 in your hand and still fucking hungry," he said.

You, sir, are no steak and wine. Well, I guess that's not entirely true. You could be a rancid Salisbury Steak TV dinner, along with a glass of wine that came out of a box, but even that's pushing it.

Last up, but certainly not least, is the great Erling Ellingson. This guy was pretty much unheard of before a few weeks ago, when he decided to show up at a couple conferences and do some interviews. Instead of handling these interviews like a normal, sane person, he decided to go another route. The route of lies, delusion and outright idiocy.

Don't believe me? Watch this video with Jon Wood of - at your own risk. This guy squirms so much when talking you can tell he's bullshitting even with the sound muted. Here are some highlights:

"The game turned around 100% just before launch. Miracle patch..."
"The 1-20 part of the game was intended to be very detailed... When WoW launched, high end content was sparse. We have lots of stuff for players end game..."
"The PVP fugitive system, it's all new stuff that we're adding in. It's not stuff that was supposed to be in before launch..."
"We're incredibly happy with the launch of Age of Conan, it was an incredibly successful launch... "(proceeds to self fellatiate)
"It's really few things [that didn't make it into launch]. It's not really big features. "

The asinine comment about PVP not being a major feature earns a collective cockpunch to Erling on behalf of every player that played AoC hoping for a PVP oriented game. It was its main selling point, and it's the reason that most people wanted to play the game. Hell, even Erling himself states "This might surprise you, but most people that play AoC play on PVP servers" - no, that doesn't surprise us. What does surprise us that this "PVP Oriented MMO" doesn't even have a PVP system. Oh, and when you roll out this magical "PVP Fugitive Patch", you'll be taking away yet one more slightly redeeming quality that AoC once had: PVP Freedom.

Now, it's time for desert. The icing of the cake is brought to you by the collective tools at Funcom who thought that announcing an expansion for Age of Conan was a good idea. Apparently they're busy listening to Erling rant on about how the game is pure awesome-sauce rather than actually playing their game. Scarily enough, there is now a team of developers working on an expansion to Age of Conan, rather than fixing the fundamental problems the game has. Make it X rated and you might get a substantial player base back.


In summary, the main causes of the death Age of Conan were this:

1. Poor client design and performance

2. Lack of basic features included in the game

3. Unaddictive gameplay, lack of thought put into game design: the game simply isn't fun.

Worst of all, we have a company and the makers of this game telling us that it is good. These same people will be put on the next MMO. Hell, Gaute might even get the nod to direct Funcom's next MMO - assuming the company still exists. "Gee, Gaute, you did so well on Age of Conan, here is another 50 Million, go make us another blockbuster like it!" Get your head out of your asses, Funcom: the people that made the decisions on where this game was going need to never be allowed on another MMO project again. But hey, it's your money, it's your funeral.

Many people might be thinking "Man, why so fucking hostile?" - and I sympathize with that. I'm not pissed at these guys I'm making fun of, I'm more disappointed. The MMO industry is just peppered with mediocrity now and it's almost becoming industry standard. Objective journalism is nigh-unheard of at mainstream MMO websites because they don't want to piss anyone off. Lastly, while what I've written here is my opinion, it's really the collective thoughts from nearly every veteran MMO player that had the misfortune of playing Age of Conan.

Future MMO developers: use this as a lesson learned; things not to do. Above all, do not patronize your players like they don't know what the hell is going on. Funcom: the game is beyond saving, but try to save some face by actually admitting the games problems, and not tap dancing around the issues like a drunk circus bear. Honesty, though missing from your corporate vocabulary, goes a long way in player retention.

That's all. Daedren out.

Original postage
Featured on MMOCrunch
Digg it up!
Rhems writes:

i lol'd

Thu Aug 28 2008 5:00AM Report
Rhems writes:

but really who cares ;) warhammer's behind the turn.

Thu Aug 28 2008 5:01AM Report
jindra81 writes:

I think if you and the Zero Puncuation guy got together there would be serious trouble. =)

Thu Aug 28 2008 5:08AM Report
Nepentheia writes:

*giggles*  What a fantastic and entertaining read. Valid points, well made. Thank you! :-)

Thu Aug 28 2008 5:08AM Report
Paske writes:

Good text - sadly also very much true.


First played Vanguard on release and now AoC. Looks like its hard to find a decent MMO lately.

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:02AM Report
Eluwien writes:

Couple of overshots, and mebbe a bit of missdirected blame. But seriously fun to read =) You should start a webpage with this kind of journalism as mainstream. Honest, for a change.

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:13AM Report
jindra81 writes:

@Eluwien: he has a site,

He's mentioned that all of the major MMO news sites have rejected him as any official correspondant or writer.

After seeing this, it's not hard to wonder why!

I agree though, it's great to read... hell, its the only reason I even check here at :)

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:20AM Report
cosimusta writes:

I flinched at this one a few times.

But it's just so damn hard for me to realistically defend Funcom.  I can't in good conscious say "It's a tough industry and if you're not the one calling the shots, and handling millions of dollars of investors money, then you can't possibly understand."

No, I don't understand, but I think it's important for everyone to understand that when you brag about being a company that cares about it's community, fail to deliver what you promised, blatantly lie about it, and then boast about how great things are, you're not allowing anyone to give you any slack.

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:26AM Report
triste writes:

nice one Daedren! I almost lost it at the walk into a restaraunt and wait 3 hours for food part... haha! I remember that interview here.

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:35AM Report
grimfall writes:

Oh, and when you roll out this magical "PVP Fugitive Patch", you'll be taking away yet one more slightly redeeming quality that AoC once had: PVP Freedom.

Huh?  So it has PVP with no consequences, isn't that PVP freedom?  But you want it to have a PVP system ... do you know what you're talking about?

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:51AM Report
Daedren writes:

@grim: I think I've made it quite clear that I don't know what I'm talking about. No? Damn!

Currently, there is no meaning to PVP in AoC, but it is "free" as in you can kill whoever you want with no penalties.

The new PVP system, if they ever put it in, will give PVP experience and rewards, but also is implementing the "Fugitive" system where you can't attack people X levels lower than you without being flagged a Fugitive (which can lead to being wanted / murderer)

For the remaining 7 people who play the game, this will mean that jackass X can run around at level 75 or whatever and just piss level 80's off by trying to flag them.

Anyway, everyone wanted a PVP system. I hope they put it in. Not that I'd ever play again, but at least having a PVP system will allow me to ridicule its craptacular failure.

Thu Aug 28 2008 7:40AM Report
Paragus1 writes:


All the innovations this game had, all of the potential will be meaningless when no people are left playing it.  I heard they added rain though!  That's what the game really needed, not PvP, not content, but some nice rain to sit and stare at when you get to 80 as you lament the stupidity of paying these assclowns.  Gaute was the same guy who ran AO into the ground, and he needs to be replaced by someone who plays the game.

Thu Aug 28 2008 7:49AM Report
cosimusta writes:

That's what the game really needed, not PvP, not content, but some nice rain to sit and stare at when you get to 80 as you lament the stupidity of paying these assclowns.

That was beautiful Paragus1 =D

Thu Aug 28 2008 8:05AM Report
craynlon writes:

nice read

on the other hand i went in there with lower expectations then most and  wasnt dissapointed. the  box offered some 100+ hours of entertainment. ive seen better, ive seen worse.

for the price of the box that included 1month of play i could have seen roughly 6movies or go to dinner a few times.

my single advice to funcom and people at other game companies would only be not overhype and go in with less but finished features

Thu Aug 28 2008 8:42AM Report
rubulator2k writes:

Sarcasm aside... great article... these bones who make these games get you to throw down 40-60 bucks for a lousy game... then you get the the usual bowel blown corporate talk up, on how great it is, will be... trying to get a few more months out of you while there trying to fix thier 50% ready on release product...

Funcom is now on my "dont buy it until its out for 9 months policy"


Thu Aug 28 2008 8:46AM Report
Shannia writes:

Great read.  You let them slide on crafting.  Calling it just a "pointless timesink" doesn't cut it.  The AoC crafting system is, by far, the work crafting system I have seen in any AAA mmorpg.

Thu Aug 28 2008 9:05AM Report
kesleri writes:

I suggest you play Runescape, game backed up by 400 Employees and weekly content started in 2002.

It can get very addicting, if you don't trust me then you can trust the 10 million active players.

Thu Aug 28 2008 9:05AM Report
Daedren writes:

@Shannia: You're right. I'll tackle that in my next article: Age of Conan: The Zombie That Didn't Know It Died


Thu Aug 28 2008 9:21AM Report
MicrobeX writes:

I'm so happy, here I tough I was loosing my mind... but I guess I'm not the only one that think this practice is silly for MMO maker. I was lucky I never tried AO, due to the fact that I couldn't even __run__ the beta client! so this is strike 2 for Funcom. SoE already out forever (unless I get a public appology)...

I still don't see where all this "end game content" the King of Lies is talking about? WoW had at least 10 times the endgame at launch

Thu Aug 28 2008 9:48AM Report
norvak writes:

AoC rocks.  I love it.  if you dont, piss off

Thu Aug 28 2008 10:31AM Report
Player_420 writes:

It makes me sad to say:

everything you said (i read the whole blog) is so utterly right...

which really story is I decided to hit level 80 and really see if I wanted to continue playing this game. I had about 1 month and a half left on my game time and I just wasnt happy. Figured i would see if the pvp patch ina month was worth it. Well I guess my free month never existed, so they only counted my 2 months for the GTC

very sad story of a MMO, makes VG look good

Thu Aug 28 2008 10:32AM Report
celtofwales writes:

Very well written, Daedren and unfortunately very true also. The video link is particularly enlightening, especially when Ellingson starts doing the 'hands washing' manouvere when he is about to tell fibs.

I have just cancelled my subscription after reaching the limits of my patience with the phenomenal amounts of memory leak crashes that their patches seem to make worse, not better.

Thank goodness Warhammer is due for release soon and Diablo 3 is in the making. It will be a cold day in Hell before I ever touch another Funcom product.

Thu Aug 28 2008 11:07AM Report
gunderak writes:

Awesome! and 100% true.  Hell I honestly had more fun playing Vanguard than AoC and thats saying something at least Vanguard had some innovative things along with their epic suck.

Thu Aug 28 2008 11:33AM Report
Elmoren writes:

Great Job man - and 100% correct.  Too much "Oh lets make a game!" syndrome in the MMO industry lately - without the military strategist foresight to realize you can't release a game without it actually working or being fun.  AOC's dead.  Good riddance.  Funcom's stock tells the rest of the story with its future.


Thu Aug 28 2008 11:37AM Report
drslice writes:

Sums up my thoughts very well. Kudos.

Thu Aug 28 2008 11:44AM Report
Ghist writes:

Did he just cut and paste from the multitude of forums about AoC?  Most of this has been said before.  He also didn't mention the retarded fanbois that are so cheery about the game that you assume they are paid by Funcom.  Hi AOC_Protus.

Thu Aug 28 2008 11:58AM Report
Eveeldour writes:


Thu Aug 28 2008 1:07PM Report
Roadshow writes:

The game is flawed but nowhere near as badly as you suggest.

PvP is a big deal for about 50% of players in MMO's but equally it is a turn-off for the rest; it isn't a game-breaker.

Likewise instancing may be a biggy for WoW players but many of us have come from other games where it is the norm. That said, there is a problem with AoC instancing in that it doesn't allow the player to select an instance when entering a zone. That is just plain dumb.

The buggy nature of the game is truly ridiculous this far past launch, but I have never had a system lock-up or BSOD related to it. My problem and that of the people I have played with is lag and disconnects. This should have been sorted long since.

Overall though, the game is far and away the most graphically attractive on the market, has an innovative combat system and is a foundation upon which a truly great game might be built. It's missed the mark a little, it isn't WoW (which seems the main bugbear of WoW fans) and somewhere in the mix it is missing the hook which draws you in. It's not a write-off just yet though.

I think the main problem facing any new mmo is that we are all bored with the format of go there, find this, kill that. We've all had favourite games which we have played until we fall unconscious from the repetitive tedium, once the glossy shene of newness wears off any new game, we soon become disillusioned with doing the same old same old over and over again.

For now WoW is held up as the flagship standard, but that is because it brought so many new players in to the market. Those of us who had played mmo's for years prior to WoWs release, find WoW just as derivative and boring as you have found AoC. And those whose first MMO is AoC will be just as disappointed in Warhammer and whatever comes next. The industry as a whole is stagnant and lacking in new ideas.

Oh yes, and your ranting, spitting, style is why you don't have a job reporting for a reputable company, but you'd make a very good bum cursing drivers at traffic-lights.

Thu Aug 28 2008 2:09PM Report
gaeanprayer writes:

@ Roadshow: The game is more than flawed, it's broken and even more so, incomplete. That you would even attempt to defend it shows your own naiveté. This has nothing to do with 'format', this has to do with a product that is beyond failure, at this point. Not to mention, Funcom refusing to admit to its mistakes and give its player-base some comfort in knowing the game has recognized quirks and is being worked on. The game is run be delusional people who are much more impressed with themselves than they have any right to be. But, by all means, go back to it. Have fun.

I personally loved this article and love Daedren's "ranting, spitting, style". If I want culture I'll pick up Time Magazine. When I'm reading criticism about a game, to help me decide if it's worth spending my money on, I want blunt honesty (kthnx). I'm sad to know I spent $50 on AoC because of the hype, but glad to see I'm not the only one who pulled their head out of their ass and jumped ship.

Thu Aug 28 2008 3:11PM Report
Lieven writes:

one point of criticism: Gaute is actually pronounced something like gehwte.

nice post though:)

Thu Aug 28 2008 3:25PM Report
Trashcantoy writes:

honestly u should add more positive points and react to those, make comparisons, not the tunnelvision wall of text u made now. u made a good start, but to convince the fanboys u really should add a lot more, altho u will have to make ur column into a casestudy :P anyway, good luck with future columns and whatnot

Thu Aug 28 2008 3:31PM Report
Psymyn writes:

good points, and sadly enough embarassingly true. I had the biggest hopes for this game being #1 and it came in at #1 in my book, but now with WAR and SC2 and Spore coming out soon i have no need to even get back into AoC as it isnt dead, but it has epically failed for sure! Its going to take time, time that they dont have, and that we wont give to fix this game!!!

Thu Aug 28 2008 3:34PM Report
Soultice writes:

Truly amazing!!

Except for the expletives it is refreshing to see a reviewer  give an honest opinion.  Game devs do need to wake up and  game sites, magazines, and professional reviewers, need to quit frigging hyping the games.

Oh Noes that would require integrity!! 

Thu Aug 28 2008 4:10PM Report
steelfrenzy writes:

Damn dude get a life.

Thu Aug 28 2008 4:54PM Report
Haradeas writes:

I agree with your post exept the part of the that wow is more polished the AoC. WoW is here for like 4 years they had time to polish. But to be honest what is polish without gameplay :p

Thu Aug 28 2008 5:18PM Report
WSIMike writes:

Awww man... I didn't want it to end!


Very entertaining read.... while also being very true.


Thu Aug 28 2008 6:45PM Report
Lobbyboy69 writes:

Brilliant read......and truthful. Best blog I have read in ages. Please post this on this official forums lol. Very well done

Thu Aug 28 2008 6:48PM Report
Roxianna writes:

Good work. I hope you keep on calling it like you see.

Thu Aug 28 2008 8:37PM Report
zonzai writes:

Hilarious!  And somehow sadly true...  Damn irony!

Thu Aug 28 2008 9:04PM Report
Askatan writes:


Thu Aug 28 2008 10:08PM Report
Malakath writes:

AoC was a better game at launch.  I think it may be fitting to add an entry that examines some of the incredibly misguided changes that Funcom made to the game.  It's almost as if they tried to make it fail. 

I notice you did not mention Jayde (no inclination to lookup his real name).  This is one of the main designers who should certainly share some of the blame.

Thu Aug 28 2008 11:48PM Report
Daedren writes:

@Lieven: Yeah, I know it's not pronounced "gout".

It's so much cooler when it is, though. Try it. Just stand up and scream...


Thanks for the good feedback everyone. I know it wasn't objective, but hey, it pays the bills. :)

Fri Aug 29 2008 3:51AM Report
Teiman writes:

*claps* *claps* *claps* *claps* ...sadly, we have another Vanguard here, a worst that Vanguard one.

Fri Aug 29 2008 8:06AM Report
JeroKane writes:

Very well written. Bit out of context with the spitting (without it you would be hired instantly).

But nonetheless it was a fun read, wich is also the sad truth about the state of the game.

Fri Aug 29 2008 8:44AM Report
Daedren writes:

@Roadshow: "Oh yes, and your ranting, spitting, style is why you don't have a job reporting for a reputable company, but you'd make a very good bum cursing drivers at traffic-lights."

Yeah, because people writing about MMO's can make piles of cash doing that.

I own my own business. I'm fine with what I do as a day job. The stuff I write is soley a hobby.

Think I have too much time on my hands? I love getting that from people that play MMO's. I think it's safe to say we all have too much time on our hands.

Fri Aug 29 2008 9:03AM Report
dhayes68 writes:

Everything you've said is true except the way you presented it its misleading. You make it seem as if you reviewed FC's AoC, but the fact is what you reviewed is a beta client at best, though more realistically its an alpha client quickly bumped up to release.  When looking at and judging AoC you must keep in mind that the game was released WAY TOO EARLY.  Its is quite conceivable that had FC held off and released when ready, almost all of your points would be non-existant.

Now I'm not excusing FC. Personally I think its long past time a major title and company was allowed to fail because the publishers COUNTED on people saying "All mmo's are bugged when released" and paying for the publisher to continue dev'ing.  But still its an important point and shouldn't be missed or forgotten, especially by other production companies: AoC's number one failure and the cause of its decline is that it was released much to early.

Fri Aug 29 2008 10:49AM Report
Devonsputant writes:

Thanks for the info.  Sadly I was one of the ones who laid the $ down on a collectors edition. :(

Wed Oct 08 2008 2:05PM Report
Kildaor writes:

I watched the video, I think that guy tried to sell me a used car.....

Sat Oct 25 2008 9:08AM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment